Title: | Farming in Michaelchurch Escley from Medieval to Victorian times |
Date: | 1500s - 1800s |
Introduction
There is little surviving historical information specifically dealing with patterns of agriculture in Michaelchurch Escley in times past. However, inferences can be drawn from a variety of other sources about possible agricultural practices and land usage in the parish of Michaelchurch Escley [and therefore probably more widely in Ewyas Lacy] from the late 16th Century until the mid 19th century, Many of the conclusions set out below about the evolution of farming in this area are necessarily speculative, but are consistent with such historical evidence as has been discovered.
Bob Steele
October 2007
The agricultural revolution in England
The 16th Century saw the start of fundamental changes affecting a feudal system of subsistence farming throughout England that had persisted from Norman times and earlier, and had been driven by the need to feed the local population and their Lords rather than by any market forces. Most farms were mixed, and in many parts of the country land remained largely unenclosed and was farmed in strips on which crops were grown side by side while livestock grazed on commons and rough pasture. Awareness of crop rotation or other techniques for sustaining and improving soil fertility was limited, so crop yields were modest and much of the arable land had to lie fallow to recover between harvests. The vast majority of people lived and worked on the land, and property ownership was still limited to a few through a rigid hierarchy controlled by the Lord of the Manor as the King’s ‘tenant-in-chief’. The amount of food that could be produced locally was a primary limitation on population, and relatively low population density in turn limited the amount of land that could be brought into use and farmed productively; considerable areas remained as ‘waste’, commons or as hunting grounds [forests] for the aristocracy. This was also a time when transport of bulk produce over any substantial distance was very difficult and activities such as milling corn were carried out locally for local consumption, in this case usually in the Lord of the Manor’s mill and under his strict control.
The transition to more intensive forms of agriculture that has been characterised as the ‘Agricultural Revolution’[1] in fact took place quite gradually over the next two to three hundred years and, the evidence suggests, perhaps even more slowly in the remote area of Ewyas Lacy than elsewhere in England. Nevertheless, the changes were profound and fundamentally altered both the lives of those working on the land and the very landscape itself. Some authorities even argue that the major increases in agricultural productivity that occurred were what made the Industrial Revolution possible, by both moving labour off the land and simultaneously providing the means to feed large urban populations in a wage based economy. Historians still argue about the precise causes of these changes to farming methods and the relative importance of different contributing factors. There is broad agreement, however, that the transformation arose from a combination of social, technological and economic developments, all of which reinforced each other.
On the social front, the old feudal hierarchy was breaking down and land was increasingly being enclosed[2] , creating upheavals and hardship nationwide as the peasant classes were stripped of their ancient property rights and dispossessed. The structure of Manorial Courts that had regulated land tenure and the system of common rights was in decay; in 1500 more than half the arable land in England was in common fields, but by the 19th century most common rights had been eliminated in favour of leaseholds on short-term tenancies. This process was associated with enclosure of land, which was initially driven by the conversion of arable common [strip] fields, wastes, traditional forests and common grazing land into enclosed sheep pasture as the profits to be made from wool rose dramatically and huge fortunes were made by the landowners and wool merchants. It is of interest to note that when Elizabeth Rawson purchased a moiety of the Manor of Ewyas Lacy, including the Michaelchurch Court Estate, for her nephew Charles Trafford in the 1860’s, some sources suggest that a significant part of her family’s inherited wealth had been derived from this wool trade.
The decline in wool prices from about 1650 should logically have curtailed the enclosure process, but instead it coincided with the beginning of a transition to new agricultural methods that once again revolutionised farming. New, much more productive systems of crop rotation and land fertilisation, the introduction of selective breeding for livestock, and mechanisation [including the use of seed drills, iron ploughs and threshing machines from the early 1700’s on] all favoured a move towards larger enclosed fields and created new demands for land. This led inevitably to the so-called ‘Parliamentary enclosures’ of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The same factors, and particularly the increasing requirements for capital investment in land, stock and machines, fuelled the development of the agrarian capitalism that finally destroyed and replaced the old feudal order. According to some historians this was also the foundation for the development of modern industrial capitalism.
At the same time as agricultural productivity was radically increasing, the migration of the people dispossessed by the enclosures into the wage-based economy of the early industrial revolution had created a new market for agricultural produce. Farming became a highly profitable business instead of a subsistence activity. This again drove up land values, and further concentrated ownership in the hands of wealthy landlords. By now, the majority of those still working on the land were also working for wages, and changing patterns of land usage reflected much wider market forces than the needs of local communities. Livestock farming became more intensive as it became economic to sow greater quantities of oats and other fodder crops. In many parts of the country traditional mixed farms gave way to more specialised arable or livestock based businesses that best utilised the quality of the land locally. Everywhere, a new economic infrastructure of merchants, distributors and middlemen evolved, until the transformation of the farmer from husbandman to businessman was complete.
The impact of change in Michaelchurch Escley
Michaelchurch Escley [and Ewyas Lacy more generally] was not immune to the changes described above, although the evidence suggests that they took place rather more slowly and to some extent less radically here than elsewhere. The early enclosures are still in evidence from the field patterns[3] but many of the fields remain small even today, suggesting that mechanisation and other commercial pressures in the 18th century that often led to the creation of bigger fields had limited effect locally. Tracts of land in Michaelchurch[4] , the Maescoeds[5] and elsewhere were, however, swept up by the 19th century Parliamentary enclosures, but even this was less comprehensive than in other parts of the country; significant areas of common land [and the Commoners’ rights to grazing] still survive locally.
Fortuitously, surviving historical records cast some light on land usage and agriculture in the parish of Michaelchurch Escley at three significant points in time; the first near the beginnings of the agricultural revolution from around 1566, then again a century and a half later in 1701-1705 when the transition to mechanised commercial farming was starting, and finally towards the end of the revolution around 1835. These records paint a picture of how local agricultural practices evolved across some three centuries, together with changes in property ownership and land tenure. Interesting comparisons can also be drawn between local experience and the wider background of events described in the preamble.
1. Michaelchurch Escley in the late 16th and early 17th centuries
There is no direct historical record of farming practice in Michaelchurch Escley in the 1500s and 1600s. However, a survey carried out during the reign of King James I of various aspects of the border area between Scotland and England[6] gives details of agricultural patterns there, including information on corn production [principally wheat and oats] for human consumption. Because of the geographic similarities of the hill country terrain along parts of that border to that of the Welsh Marches, it is interesting to explore the hypothesis that those patterns might be similar to those in Michaelchurch Escley at that time, and to use them as a yardstick against which other indirect evidence can be tested.
Key facts quoted in the 1604 Scottish Border Survey include:
1. Arable land amounted to about 1/7th [14%] of the land in use for agriculture, excluding waste, rough commons and the like.
2. About 1/3rd of all arable land lay fallow at any one time, in line with traditional crop rotation practices, with the balance being planted with corn mainly for human consumption
3. Corn yields were normally in the range 12 to 16 bushels per acre, of which roughly 25% would be retained for use as seed in the following year planted at 3 to 4 bushels per acre. [An English [Imperial] bushel is a dry measure of volume equal to 4 pecks, 8 gallons or 32 quarts]
4. A typical family consisted of 5 people, and consumed an average of 24 to 30 bushels of corn per year to maintain adequate levels of nutrition
5. The average area of farmed land per head of population [families and household servants, but excluding ‘cottingers’] was about 7 acres
There are several ways to assess whether these parameters applied to Michaelchurch Escley, but the area of land under tenancy in the parish at the time must be established first. This is not entirely straightforward, because when the manor of Ewyas Lacy was divided between the de Lacy heirs in 1241, Michaelchurch was also divided with part of the lands falling into each moiety. According to a commission set up in 1566 to assess the rentals of one of the moieties [then held by Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester] of the manor of Ewyas Lacy[7] , about 2000 statute acres [English measure] of land, excluding forests, commons and waste, was tenanted in that part of Michaelchurch Escley at that time, but there is no contemporary survey of the other moiety held by Lord Abergavenny. However, both parts of the manor were surveyed at roughly the same time at the beginning of the 18th century and It seems reasonable to assume that any enclosures or other changes in land usage between the two dates would have affected both parts broadly equally, so that the ratio between the number of acres in use in each moiety would remain constant. On this basis Lord Abergavenny would have held about 2300 acres in Michaelchurch in 1566, giving a total of tenanted land being farmed in the parish then of about 4300 acres.
Based on the parameters defined in the 1604 Scottish Border survey it is now possible to construct a speculative picture of how farming may have been organised in Michaelchurch Escley in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Farms would be mixed, with only some 1/7th of the tenanted land, or about 600 acres, cultivated as arable, and the balance accounted for by pasture and meadow for livestock, supplemented by grazing on commons. About 1/3rd or 200 acres of the arable land would be fallow at any given time. The remaining 400 acres would be used for corn production at a yield of 12 to 16 bushels per acre. However, actual wheat yields recorded in Ewyas Lacy in the Tithe Commutation Assessments in the 1840s[8] were only 12 bushels per acre for wheat, and would certainly not have been higher in 1600, so using the lower figure the total annual corn crop would be about 4800 bushels. One quarter of this would need to be retained as seed corn, giving a net crop of 3600 bushels to feed the local population. At a consumption of 25 to 30 bushels per family, this crop would sustain between 120 and 144 households, and with an average of 5 people per household this suggests a local population of between 600 and 700, depending on the levels of nutrition assumed. An alternative calculation from the Scottish Border survey average of 7 acres of farmed land per head gives a population figure of about 600, implying that the number of people living in Michaelchurch was at the lower end of the range and that they were therefore probably well-fed by the standards of the time within a sustainable and balanced farming infrastructure.
The above scenario can be tested and perhaps validated indirectly in two ways; firstly by independently estimating the local population, and secondly by estimating the size of the annual crop that could be ground at the local corn mill on the presumption that all corn grown locally could be expected to be ground there.
The local population estimates in 1566 calculated from the Border survey above are significantly higher than the known population of the parish in the 19th century, and this is perhaps to be expected as the combined effects of enclosures, improved agricultural productivity and the emergence of a wage-based economy all conspired to push people off the land in the intervening years. All the same, it is useful that there is separate and quite independent way to calculate population, from information in MJ Faraday’s book on Herefordshire taxes[9] , which includes some detailed records of taxation in Michaelchurch Escley. This lists 76 taxpayers in ‘Mychelchurche’ in 1544 and Faraday also calculates that in general in those days about 75% of households paid these taxes. This puts the number of households in Michaelchurch in 1544 at about 100, and at an average of 5 people per family [per the Border survey] this gives a calculated population of 500 for the parish compared to 600-700 above. This difference between the two approaches is within the probable margins of error of such speculative calculations, and we must perhaps also factor in the possibility that local people had a higher than average ability to evade taxation in such a remote area!
Another independent way to test the above hypothesis about crop yields and the wider conclusions that follow from them is available in Michaelchurch Escley. There has been a water corn mill in the parish since Norman times[10] , and there is documentary evidence that Michaelchurch Mill was working in the early 1600’s[11] . This mill would reasonably be expected to grind most if not all of the corn produced locally, not only because the mill was owned by the Lord of the Manor who would demand his customary taxes for the milling but also because the records suggest that in the fifteenth century it was one of only three mills serving the manor, the other two being some distance away in Longtown and Clodock. It is possible to calculate the approximate capacity of the mill, and thus obtain an independent estimate of the local corn crop.
In the early 1600’s watermills were typically constructed with the waterwheel driving one pair of millstones directly, rather than using the arrangement of spur wheel gears to power two or more pairs of stones that later became common and is generally seen in surviving mills today. One old millstone from that time has been found at Michaelchurch mill, and the way this surviving four-foot diameter stone is dressed proves that it was indeed one of a single pair driven in the old way. When producing flour meal, this size of millstone is known to be able to grind about 5 bushels of corn per hour. Most of the milling work had to be done in the winter months, and milling was normally restricted to daylight hours since flour dust and air can be explosive so that candles or lanterns with bare flames could not safely be used. Assuming an average of 6 hours milling [30 bushels] per day, the mill would therefore have had to run for 120 days each year to process a total of 3600 bushels [the estimated annual crop, above, in the parish of Michaelchurch Escley]. Working 5 days per week, this is equivalent to 24 weeks of continuous milling. In practice, allowing for operating inefficiencies, variable water levels and downtime for essential maintenance such as regular dressing of the millstones, this would probably occupy the whole period for which the flow of water in the Escley Brook is usually sufficient [roughly September to March, or about 28 weeks] to drive the mill continuously. Since the annual production capacity of the mill broadly matches the estimated local corn crop at that time, this lends credence to the figures on corn production given above and thus to the related deductions about local farming.
The fact that these various calculations seem to produce outcomes that not only relate quite well to each other but are also consistent with all the known facts suggests that the above picture of local agriculture and land usage in Michaelchurch Escley in the late 16th and early 17th century is probably about right, although a number of important questions remain unanswered. For example, the Scottish Border survey identifies a substantial population of ‘cottingers’ on the land, who are not the families or household servants of the tenants but are presumably peasant labourers [who may or may not have small and perhaps unauthorised subsistence landholdings of their own] who earn a living as farm workers. There is no firm information on whether such an additional ‘unrecorded’ population existed in Michaelchurch in the 16th and 17th centuries, although given the labour intensive nature of agriculture [especially arable farming] in those days it seems quite probable, and references in the 1566 survey to small enclosures of waste land without licence may provide a clue to the existence of such a group. Equally, the extent of general field enclosures in the manor of Ewyas Lacy remains unknown; there is no information on whether crops were cultivated in open or enclosed fields, or on the extent to which meadows and pastures in tenanted land were already enclosed by the 16th century.
Lastly, it must also be borne in mind that corn for human consumption was not necessarily the only crop grown, and certainly agricultural returns in the 19th century indicate a wider variety of crops being raised in Ewyas Lacy, including some for animal fodder. If this was the case in the earlier times, the above calculations of arable acreage may need revision upwards and some of the other inferences would need to be reassessed. However, the labour required for ploughing, soil preparation, sowing, reaping, thrashing and crop storage was considerable, and so it is probable that arable usage would have been kept to a minimum and concentrated mainly on corn production in the centuries before mechanisation and other techniques for improved agricultural productivity were introduced. As always, though, there remains much scope for further research if other relevant historical records can be discovered.
2. Michaelchurch Escley in the early 18th century
The boom in the wool trade and its impact on British agriculture in the 17th and 18th centuries, with all the social and other upheavals that resulted, would be expected to have made a substantial impact in Michaelchurch Escley. However, a survey of the same moiety of the manor of Ewyas Lacy as was surveyed in 1566 was conducted between 1701 and 1705 for John Jeffreys[12] , and shows the total amount of land held freehold, free bound, or in other traditional forms by tenants was virtually identical to the 1566 survey, although some changes in the form of tenure [or at least in the form of words used by the surveyors] seem to have taken place. On the face of it, this suggests that there had been relatively little alteration to traditional ways of life in the parish, but closer inspection shows otherwise. The most obvious difference is that about 440 statute acres of ‘new’ leasehold and bound land, presumably enclosed from commons or waste land in the manor, is reported in the Jeffreys survey, which was not in use in 1566 and brings the total area of land being farmed in this part of the parish up to 2,440 statute acres – a 22 % increase. This is a very substantial increment, though if this land had been reclaimed from waste the general impact on the livelihoods of ordinary local people may not have been very great. If on the other hand it reflects enclosure of land customarily used as common then the social and economic consequences for the dispossessed would have been much greater. The Jeffreys survey is silent on this issue and no other contemporary references have been found, but it may be surmised that both kinds of enclosure took place.
There are also indications in the Jeffreys survey that other important changes had occurred. The number of individual tenants recorded had fallen to 29 [from 33 in 1566], and the size of the largest holdings had grown markedly; in 1566 there were just two holdings of around 250 statute acres, while in 1705 there were three holdings in excess of 300 acres, and the largest was over 450 acres[13] . Perhaps even more telling is the proportion of tenants with small land holdings; 36% of the tenants farmed 20 statute acres or less in 1566, but by 1705 this had fallen to only 17%. The increase in farm sizes and the appearance of leasehold lands are both consistent with the initial phase of enclosures of common land and the growth in sheep farming that was characteristic of the period. Although no specific information is available on any changes of land usage or crops, the above figures are also consistent with a move away from traditional small-scale arable subsistence farming towards more intensive and perhaps more varied cultivation as land was consolidated into larger farms and livestock fodder crops became more important. All these factors could well have caused substantial social upheavals and hardship in Michaelchurch Escley, as they did throughout the country, but there is no contemporary evidence to corroborate this.
A second survey conducted for Lord Abergavenny in 1701[14] covering the other moiety of the manor of Ewyas Lacy is also available, and identifies about 2800 statute acres of tenanted land in Michaelchurch. There is no matching data from the 16th century against which comparisons can be made, and it is more difficult to identify in this survey any possible new enclosures affecting this part of Michaelchurch Escley. Nevertheless it is reasonable to assume that enclosures of common and waste land took place on a similar scale to those elsewhere, and that the area of land being farmed had expanded accordingly. There is less evidence of other significant changes in farming patterns; in 1701 there are no farms recorded larger than 200 acres, and 30% of the tenants still farm 20 acres or less. This is more akin to the Dudley survey of the other part of the parish in 1566, and is consistent with a picture of a more stable and traditional part of the manor where the impact of change may have been smaller.
Overall, therefore, the evidence suggests that the changes to farming practices in Michaelchurch in the period from 1566 to around 1705 were significant, but probably relatively modest compared to the revolution that was occurring elsewhere in the country. It does, however, seem that a significant contrast might have existed between the two parts of Michaelchurch held by different Lords of the manor at this time, perhaps reflecting the different attitudes of Lord Abergavenny for whom Ewyas Lacy was a relatively insignificant part of much larger, long-held and conservatively managed estates, and John Jeffreys who probably relied on his holdings here for a substantial part of his living and whose lands had a much more chequered history.
3. Michaelchurch Escley c.1835
By the 1830’s the second phase of the revolution in British agriculture was well advanced in most of the country, as crop rotation regimes changed radically to the ‘Norfolk four course system’[15] that greatly improved yields, mechanisation became more widespread and scientific advances improved the quality of both livestock and crops. The most visible effects of these changes on farming practices included the planting of turnips and clover replacing the traditional fallow year for arable land, and the further enclosure and consolidation of land into larger fields to maximise the benefits of mechanisation.
In Michaelchurch Escley these factors would be expected to have had an important impact. There is no comprehensive survey of agriculture in the whole parish, but a detailed survey of the Michaelchurch Court Estate c.1835[16] survives. Much of this estate lay in Michaelchurch, with the balance in Craswall, Newton and Peterchurch, and it is reasonable to assume that the overall picture of land usage on the estate, set out below, reflects the state of affairs in the parish of Michaelchurch more generally. The data therefore provides the opportunity to test the extent to which local farming had in fact been influenced by the wider external changes in agricultural practices.
The Michaelchurch Court Estate survey provides details of some 1240 statute acres of arable, pasture and meadow land, excluding commons, woods and mountain land, spread across 14 tenanted farms [Table 1].
Table 1: Summary of Michaelchurch Court Estate land c.1835 | |
| Names of farms | Quantity of each farm [a-r-p] |
| Michaelchurch Court | 281-3-2 |
| Goods farm | 43-0-29 |
| Mappllydd farm | 32-0-0 |
| Cae Vatin or The Wilderness | 86-1-5 |
| Firs farm | 174-1-1 |
| The Bank farm | 123-0-19 |
| Danlloyne & Gworlod Vain | 75-0-27 |
| Dukes farm or Upper Llandraw | 97-1-3 |
| Forest mill and land | 14-3-10 |
| Llandraw | 106-0-0 |
| Rhyd-y-Bach | 21-1-38 |
| The Castle farm | 62-1-33 |
| Trenant farm | 119-0-13 |
| Michaelchurch mill and lands | 11-3-18 |
| Cottage, garden and meadow | 1-2-12 |
| Meadow (Joanna Johnson) | 1-0-0 |
| Allotment on Maescoed | 16-0-0 |
| Arable land | 2-0-0 |
| Rough pasture | 3-0-0 |
|
|
|
| TOTAL | 1240-1-10 |
A little over one third of the total estate land being farmed is identified as arable – either planted or lying fallow [Table 2]. Applied to the parish as a whole, this ratio suggests that over 1600 acres might have been farmed in Michaelchurch as arable in 1835, compared to only an estimated 600 acres in 1566. This implies either that the way the estate lands were farmed was not representative of the parish as a whole, or that a major and rather unexpected transformation of land usage had taken place. The former seems unlikely as the estate appears to have been run as separately tenanted relatively small farms and not in hand as an integrated whole, so that individual farmers would be making their own decisions along similar lines to their peers elsewhere in the parish. It is however possible that the quality of the land in the estate farms was higher than the average for the parish as a whole and may have been more suited to cultivation, but this is unlikely to be so marked as to account for the entire shift in farming practices.
Table 2: Arable land usage in Michaelchurch Court Estate c.1835 | ||
| Crop | Statute Acres | % of total arable |
| Oats | 151 | 32.6 |
| Fallow | 145 | 31.3 |
| Wheat | 108 | 23.3 |
| Clover | 17 | 3.7 |
| Barley | 13 | 3.0 |
| Potatoes | 11 | 2.4 |
| Turnips | 10 | 2.2 |
| Peas | 8 | 1.3 |
|
|
|
|
| TOTAL Arable | 464 | 100 |
On the other hand, many other expected indicators of change are unconvincing or equivocal. The average field size in the 1835 Michaelchurch Estate survey is 5 ¼ acres[17] , and the average for the arable fields is even lower at 4 ½ acres; this does not suggest that mechanisation was markedly driving up field sizes to make production more efficient. Nearly a third of all arable land is still lying fallow, close to the old traditional three course crop rotation formula, and the very small proportion of turnips and clover being grown is further evidence that the ‘new-fangled’ four-course rotation schemes with their crop yield benefits had not [yet] found favour in Michaelchurch. Even the farm sizes remain fairly modest, implying that commercial and productivity pressures were not forcing consolidation into larger units.
It is dangerous to make too many assumptions about how much of a transformation in farming and land usage had really taken place by 1835 and the reasons for it. However, it is interesting to note that applying the Michaelchurch Estate figures specifically for wheat production pro rata, there were about 400 acres of wheat grown in the parish in 1835, the same as the estimated acreage set to corn ‘for human consumption’ in 1566. It is possible, therefore, that the growth in arable acreage by 1835 was primarily driven by the need to produce animal fodder [including oats] to support more intensive livestock farming on relatively poor land enclosed from commons or waste, and that this requirement was simply met by cultivating additional pasture land in the traditional way rather than by the use of more advanced farming methods to increase crop yields from existing arable fields. This interpretation is supported by the fact that by the mid 1800s Michaelchurch mill had been equipped with a second pair of millstones used for grinding animal feed, along with a larger waterwheel and a more efficient set of gears to provide the additional power, and so had the capacity to handle significant quantities of fodder crops in addition to the wheat grown for flour.
Conclusion
The overall picture of agricultural practices and land usage in Michaelchurch Escley between the 16th and 19th centuries set out above is consistent with both the known local facts and with the wider historical events that transformed the English countryside and the lives of its inhabitants during that time. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the changes in these three hundred years, while significant, were not sudden or particularly revolutionary in this part of the world. The remoteness and increasing isolation of the area after the demise of the Marcher Lords may well have militated against the quick adoption of new agricultural techniques, however worthy, as well as insulating local people from market forces and the pressures of economic change from outside. Whatever the reasons, many traditional values and ways of doing things seem to have persisted longer here than in most parts of the country and, arguably, remain part of the character of Michaelchurch Escley even today.
[1] Agricultural Revolution in England: The transformation of the agrarian economy 1500 – 1850, Mark Overton, Cambridge University Press 1996.
[2] Wikipedia: Article on Enclosures
[3] Michaelchurch Escley Tithe Maps of 1844 and Ordnance Survey maps eg Pathfinder 1039 [SO 23/33] 1: 25000
[4] Enclosure map of Urishay Common : University of Essex History Data Service website catalogue reference EXMID 13018 showing 300 acres [3% of the parish] enclosed in 1855. Also Roger J. P. Kain, John Chapman, Richard R. Oliver, The Enclosure Maps of England and Wales, 1595-1918, Cambridge University Press, 2004
[5] Historical Development of roads, tracks, lanes, footpaths and stiles in Newton : G Charnock, Ewyas Lacy Study group 2007
[6] ‘Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society’: Volume LXIX, [http://www.cwaas.org.uk/ ] Article VI
[7] Rental of Ewias Lacy on the behalf of Robert Dudley Earl of Leicester:renewed before John Dudley and others acting under a commission dated 29 June, 8 Eliz. [1566], Longleat DU/VOL XVII [Private research/ transcription by Dewi Bowen Williams B.A., 2005]
[8] Private research, Tithe Files, Nina Wedell 2007
[9] Herefordshire Taxes in the Reign of Henry VIII, MA Faraday, Woolhope Naturalists Field Club 2005
[10] The Life and Times of Michaelchurch Mill : R Steele, Ewyas Lacy Study Group 2007
[11] Quitclaim for Michaelchurch Mill dated 1642 : HRO reference P82/11/8836. Transcription by Ewyas Lacy Study Group 2007
[12] Survey of the Manor of Ewyas Lacy for John Jefferies, 1701-1705 : HRO reference J91/4. Transcription by the Ewyas Lacy Study Group 2007
[13] Extract from Survey of the manor of Ewyas Lacy , 1701-1705: Ewyas Lacy Study Group 2007
[14] Survey of the Manor of Ewyas Lacy for Lord Abergavenny, 1701 : Gwent Record Office reference Man/A/2/0252. Transcription by the Ewyas Lacy Study Group 2007
[15] Wikipedia: Article on crop yields
[16] Survey of the Michaelchurch Court Estate ; reference HRO 019/2/14. Summary by the Ewyas Lacy Study Group 2007
[17] Extract from Survey of the Michaelchurch Court Estate , 1835: Ewyas Lacy Study Group 2007
Ref: rs_mic_0140